Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 25
Articulus II. De iis qui possunt suscipere ordines.
Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de possibilitate suscipiendi ordines, de qua quatuor quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur, utrum ad hoc, quod ab aliquo possit ordo recipi, requiratur sexus virilis, an femina possit suscipere. Secundo, utrum ad ordinis susceptionem necessarius sit usus rationis. Tertio, utrum necessaria sit indivisio carnis. Quarto, utrum necessaria sit conditio libertatis.
Quaestio I. Utrum ad susceptionem ordinis requiratur sexus virilis.
Quantum ergo ad primum, quod sexus virilis requiratur, ostenditur1:
1. Primo sic: nullus ordo potest conferri ei qui non habet naturalem possibilitatem vel aptitudinem ad illum; nullus autem habet possibilitatem ad ordinem, qui non habet aptitudinem ad tonsuram et coronam; et nullus ad hoc habet naturalem aptitudinem, quem decet semper habere velatum caput: si ergo solum virum per naturam decet orare capite non velato, mulierem autem velato capite, sicut dicitur primae ad Corinthios undecimo2, quod et ipsa natura docet: ergo etc.
2. Item, nullus est possibilis ad ordines suscipiendos, nisi qui Dei gerit imaginem, quia in hoc Sacramento homo quodam modo fit Deus sive divinus, dum potestatis divinae fit particeps; sed vir ratione sexus est imago Dei, sicut dicitur primae ad Corinthios undecimo3: ergo nullo modo mulier potest ordinari.
3. Item, in ordine spiritualis potestas datur ordinato; sed talis potestatis non est mulier susceptibilis, sicut dicitur primae ad Timotheum secundo4: Mulierem in Ecclesia docere non permitto neque dominari in virum: ergo nec ordinis.
4. Item, ordines alii praeparant ad episcopatum, si quis bene in illis conversetur; sed episcopus sponsus est Ecclesiae5: ergo cum mulier non possit ad episcopatum provehi, sed tantum vir, alioquin sponsus non esset Ecclesiae; ergo ad ordines antecedentes promoveri est tantum virorum.
Contra: 1. Iudicum quarto6 legitur, quod Debbora iudicavit Israel et ei praefuit: ergo videtur, quod mulieri competat potestas iudiciaria, maxime quando abundat in gratia: ergo et potestas sacerdotalis.
2. Item, in novo testamento videmus abbatissas, quibus committuntur collegia regenda: ergo videtur, quod eis committi debeat potestas absolvendi et ligandi: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod conferri posset eis ordo sacerdotalis.
3. Item, ordo sacerdotalis et alii respiciunt animam et non carnem; sed quantum ad animam non est distinctio sexus, immo ita imago Dei est mulier, ut vir7: ergo aeque bene est susceptibilis ordinis.
4. Item, non est maior perfectio, quam sit status religionis, nec maior fortitudo, quam sit in perpessione martyrii; sed mulieres admittuntur tam ad religionem quam ad martyrium: ergo debent et possunt admitti ad ordinem sacrum.
Conclusio. Mulieres nec de iure nec de facto ordines suscipere possunt.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod communis hoc tenet opinio, quod mulieres ad sacros ordines admitti p. 650 non debent. Nam expresse dicitur distinctione vigesima tertia1b: «Sacratas Deo feminas vel monachas sacra vasa vel sacratas pallas penes vos contingere et incensum circa altare deferre, perlatum est ad apostolicam Sedem, quae omnia vituperatione et reprehensione plena esse, nulli recte sapientium est dubium. Quapropter huius sanctae Sedis auctoritate, ne pestis haec latius divulgetur, per omnes provincias abstergi citissime mandamus».
Et sic omnes consentiunt, quod promoveri non debent; sed utrum possint, dubium est. Sane quorundam opinio fuit, quod possunt, qui dicti sunt Cataphrygae2b, qui etiam non solum praemissis auctoritatibus innituntur, sed auctoritatibus adhaerent canonum et pro se adducunt, in quibus ostenditur, mulieres antiquitus ordines suscepisse. Dicitur enim Causa vigesima septima, quaestione prima3b: «Diaconissam ante annos quadraginta non debere ordinari, statuimus»; et in eadem quaestione: «Si quis rapuerit, vel sollicitaverit diaconissam»; et similiter distinctione trigesima secunda mentio fit de presbytera. — Sed certe, si attendatur quod dicitur distinctione trigesima secunda4b, Presbyteram etc., ibi ostenditur, quod presbyterae vocantur viduae et seniores et matronae; et ex hoc colligitur, quod diaconissae dicebantur quae communicabant cum diaconibus in legendo homiliam, quibus fiebat aliqua benedictio. Unde nullo modo credendum est, quod unquam secundum canones mulieres fuerint ad sacros ordines promotae. Et secundum saniorem opinionem et prudentiorem5b doctorum non solum non debent vel non possunt de iure, verum etiam non possunt de facto.
Et si quaeratur ratio huius, dicendum, quod hoc non venit tam ex institutione Ecclesiae quam ex hoc, quod eis non competit ordinis Sacramentum. In hoc enim Sacramento persona, quae ordinatur, significat Christum mediatorem; et quoniam mediator solum in virili sexu fuit et per virilem sexum potest significari6b: ideo possibilitas suscipiendi ordines solum viris competit, qui soli possunt naturaliter repraesentare et secundum characteris susceptionem actu signum huius ferre. Et ista positio probabilior est et multis auctoritatibus Sanctorum potest probari7b.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Debbora, dicendum, quod illa fuit potestas temporalis, non spiritualis. Mulieribus autem bene licet temporaliter dominari, sed non spirituali dominio, quod est signum, quod ille qui dominatur, gerit typum capitis Christi; quoniam ergo mulier non potest esse caput viri8b, ideo ordinari non potest.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de abbatissis, dicendum, quod non habent locum praelationis ordinariae, sed quasi loco abbatis sunt substitutae propter periculum cohabitandi cum viris; unde non possunt ordinarie absolvere nec ligare9b. Officium autem sacerdotale, vel etiam cuiuslibet ordinis, cui datur ordinarie potestas ista et ordo, significationem habet, quae non competit mulieri, quamvis regimen competat feminis.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ordo respicit animam; dicendum, quod non respicit animam tantum, sed animam, ut est carni coniuncta, et hoc ratione significationis, quae consistit circa signum visibile, ac per hoc etiam circa corpus; et exsecutio et usus ordinis coniunctum respicit. Quoniam nec ordinis significatio nec etiam dispensatio sic competit mulieri, sicut superius probatum est; ideo patet illud.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de perfectione religionis et martyrii; dicendum, quod est perfectio, quae respicit gratiam gratum facientem, et huius aeque bene est susceptibilis mulier, ut vir; et est p. 651 perfectio status, qui concernit aliquid gratis datum, et haec potest competere uni sexui, quamvis non competat alii; quia haec non tantum respicit quod est interius, sed etiam quod est exterius. Talis est perfectio ordinis, in qua est collatio potestatis, quam ostendit multiplex ratio mulieribus1c minime convenire.
I. Communis doctrina cum inviolabili praxi Ecclesiae tenet, iure divino mulieres ineptas esse ad ordinem quemlibet suscipiendum.
De 1. quaestione: Scot., hic q. 2. n. 1. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 39. a. 1; — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., a. 4. q. 1. — De hac et seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 2; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.
II. Quoad 2. quaestionem Durand. (loc. cit. n. 8.) opinionem I. hic relatam defendere voluit; de qua S. Thom. dicit, eam nec ratione nec auctoritate confirmari. — Exceptio, quam S. Doctor ponit quoad episcopatum, confirmatur a S. Thoma et Petro a Tar., non vero a Scoto et a sententia, ut videtur, nunc communi. Antiqua illa opinio, ut patet, cohaeret cum memorata doctrina, quod episcopatus proprie non sit ordo, et quod per consequens non imprimat characterem.
De 2. quaestione: Scot., hic q. 2. n. 3. — S. Thom., locis quaestiunc. 2. et a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2.
III. De tertia quaestione ab auctoribus rerum moralium et canonicarum agitur in tractatu de irregularitatibus, et quidem specialiter de defectu Sacramenti, quae est bigamia, sive vera, sive interpretativa (si quis duxit in matrimonium viduam vel corruptam), sive similitudinaria. Alii commentatores Lombardi tractant diffusius de bigamia infra d. 27, sed Scot. infra d. 33. q. 2. — S. Thom., d. 27. q. 3. a. 1-3; Suppl. q. 66. a. 1-5. — B. Albert., d. 27. a. 20-22. — Petr. a Tar., d. 27. q. 5. n. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., d. 27. a. 4. q. 1-4. — Durand., d. 27. q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., d. 27. q. 4.
IV. Quaestio 4. agit de irregularitate ex defectu libertatis secundum canones. — De eadem quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 39. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1.
---
Article II. On those who can receive orders.
Next, as regards the second article, inquiry is made concerning the possibility of receiving orders, about which four things are asked.
First it is asked whether, for an order to be received by someone, the male sex is required, or whether a woman can receive it. Second, whether for receiving an order the use of reason is necessary. Third, whether integrity of the flesh is necessary. Fourth, whether the condition of freedom is necessary.
Question I. Whether the male sex is required for receiving an order.
As regards the first, then, that the male sex is required is shown1:
1. First, thus: no order can be conferred on one who does not have the natural possibility or aptitude for it; but no one has the possibility for an order who does not have the aptitude for the tonsure and the crown; and no one has a natural aptitude for this whom it befits always to have the head veiled: if, therefore, by nature it befits only a man to pray with head unveiled, but a woman with head veiled, as is said in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter eleven2, which nature itself also teaches: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, no one is capable of receiving orders except one who bears the image of God, because in this Sacrament a man is in a certain manner made God or divine, while he becomes a participant in divine power; but a man by reason of his sex is the image of God, as is said in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter eleven3: therefore in no way can a woman be ordained.
3. Likewise, in an order spiritual power is given to the one ordained; but a woman is not capable of such power, as is said in the first [Epistle] to Timothy, chapter two4: I do not permit a woman to teach in the Church, nor to have dominion over a man: therefore neither [is she capable] of an order.
4. Likewise, the other orders prepare one for the episcopate, if one conducts himself well in them; but a bishop is the spouse of the Church5: therefore, since a woman cannot be advanced to the episcopate, but only a man — otherwise there would not be a spouse of the Church — therefore to be promoted to the antecedent orders belongs only to men.
On the contrary: 1. In Judges, chapter four6, it is read that Deborah judged Israel and presided over it: therefore it seems that judiciary power belongs to a woman, especially when she abounds in grace: therefore priestly power also.
2. Likewise, in the New Testament we see abbesses, to whom communities are committed to be governed: therefore it seems that the power of absolving and binding ought to be committed to them: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the priestly order could be conferred on them.
3. Likewise, the priestly order and the others regard the soul and not the flesh; but as regards the soul there is no distinction of sex, indeed a woman is the image of God just as a man is7: therefore she is equally well capable of an order.
4. Likewise, there is no greater perfection than the state of religion, nor greater fortitude than that in the endurance of martyrdom; but women are admitted both to religion and to martyrdom: therefore they ought to and can be admitted to a sacred order.
Conclusion. Women can receive orders neither by right nor in fact.
I respond: It must be said that the common opinion holds this, that women ought not to be admitted to sacred orders. For it is expressly said in distinction twenty-three1b: «That women consecrated to God, or nuns, touch the sacred vessels or the consecrated palls in your presence, and carry incense around the altar, has been brought to the Apostolic See; and that all these things are full of censure and reproach, is doubtful to none of the rightly wise. Wherefore, by the authority of this holy See, lest this plague be spread more widely, we command that it be wiped away most swiftly throughout all the provinces».
And thus all agree that they ought not to be promoted; but whether they can, is doubtful. Indeed the opinion of certain persons was that they can, who were called Cataphrygians2b, who moreover rely not only on the aforesaid authorities, but adhere to the authorities of the canons and adduce for themselves [texts] in which it is shown that women anciently received orders. For it is said in Cause twenty-seven, question one3b: «We have decreed that a deaconess ought not to be ordained before forty years»; and in the same question: «If anyone should carry off or solicit a deaconess»; and likewise in distinction thirty-two mention is made of a woman-presbyter. — But certainly, if one attends to what is said in distinction thirty-two4b, Presbyteram etc., there it is shown that women-presbyters are called widows and elders and matrons; and from this it is gathered that those women were called deaconesses who communicated with the deacons in the reading of the homily, upon whom some blessing was conferred. Hence it is by no means to be believed that women were ever, according to the canons, promoted to sacred orders. And according to the sounder and more prudent opinion5b of the doctors they not only ought not or cannot by right, but also cannot in fact.
And if the reason for this be asked, it must be said that this comes not so much from the institution of the Church as from this, that the Sacrament of order does not befit them. For in this Sacrament the person who is ordained signifies Christ the mediator; and since the mediator was only in the male sex and can be signified only through the male sex6b: therefore the possibility of receiving orders belongs only to men, who alone can naturally represent and, according to the reception of the character, actually bear the sign of this. And this position is more probable and can be proved by many authorities of the Saints7b.
1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Deborah, it must be said that that was a temporal power, not spiritual. But it is indeed permitted to women to exercise dominion temporally, but not with spiritual dominion, which is a sign that he who exercises dominion bears the type of the head, Christ; since, therefore, a woman cannot be the head of a man8b, therefore she cannot be ordained.
2. To that which is objected concerning abbesses, it must be said that they do not hold the place of an ordinary prelacy, but are substituted as it were in the place of an abbot on account of the danger of cohabiting with men; hence they cannot in the ordinary way absolve or bind9b. But the priestly office, or also that of any order, to which this power and order are ordinarily given, has a signification which does not befit a woman, although governance may befit women.
3. To that which is objected, that an order regards the soul; it must be said that it does not regard the soul alone, but the soul as it is joined to the flesh, and this by reason of signification, which consists about a visible sign, and through this also about the body; and the execution and use of the order regard the conjoined [soul-and-body]. Since neither the signification of the order nor even its dispensation thus befits a woman, as was proved above; therefore that is evident.
4. To that which is objected concerning the perfection of religion and of martyrdom; it must be said that there is a perfection which regards the grace that makes pleasing, and of this a woman is equally well capable as a man; and there is a perfection of state, which concerns something freely given, and this can befit one sex, although it may not befit the other; because this regards not only what is interior, but also what is exterior. Such is the perfection of the order, in which there is a conferral of power, which manifold reasoning shows to be by no means fitting for women1c.
I. The common doctrine, together with the inviolable practice of the Church, holds that by divine right women are unfit to receive any order whatever.
On the first question: Scotus, here q. 2, nn. 1, 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1, sub-question 1; Suppl. q. 39, a. 1; — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, a. 4, q. 1. — On this and the following questions: Durandus, here q. 2; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 4.
II. As regards the second question, Durandus (in the cited place, n. 8) wished to defend the first opinion related here; of which St. Thomas says that it can be confirmed neither by reason nor by authority. — The exception which the holy Doctor makes with respect to the episcopate is confirmed by St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, but not by Scotus nor by the opinion, as it seems, now common. That ancient opinion, as is evident, coheres with the aforementioned doctrine, that the episcopate is not properly an order, and that consequently it does not imprint a character.
On the second question: Scotus, here q. 2, n. 3. — St. Thomas, in the [cited] places, sub-question 2 and a. 2. — Blessed Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4, q. 2.
III. The third question is treated by the authors of moral and canonical matters in the tract on irregularities, and indeed especially concerning the defect of the Sacrament, which is bigamy, whether true, or interpretative (if someone has taken in marriage a widow or a corrupted woman), or similitudinary. Other commentators on the Lombard treat more at length of bigamy below at d. 27, but Scotus below at d. 33, q. 2. — St. Thomas, d. 27, q. 3, aa. 1–3; Suppl. q. 66, aa. 1–5. — Blessed Albert, d. 27, aa. 20–22. — Peter of Tarentaise, d. 27, q. 5, nn. 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, d. 27, a. 4, qq. 1–4. — Durandus, d. 27, q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, d. 27, q. 4.
IV. Question 4 treats of irregularity arising from defect of freedom according to the canons. — On the same question: St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, sub-question 1; Suppl. q. 39, a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5, q. 1.
---
- 1Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion to question 1 of this article.
- 2Vers. 4. seq.: «Omnis vir orans aut prophetans velato capite deturpat caput suum. Omnis autem mulier orans aut prophetans non velato capite deturpat caput suum; unum enim est, ac si decalvetur». Vers. 13. seq.: Decet mulierem non velatam orare Deum? Nec ipsa natura docet vos, quod vir quidem si comam nutriat, ignominia est illi etc. — De tonsura vide supra d. 24. p. I. q. I. — Pro quod et ipsa natura docet codd. et ed. 1 quod nec ipsa natura docet [codd. GH decet], lectio recipienda, si S. Bonav. modum non mutasset in verbis Apostoli; cod. Q ergo nullo modo mulier, quod nec ipsa etc.Verse 4 f.: «Every man praying or prophesying with head veiled disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with head not veiled disgraces her head; for it is one and the same as if she were shaven». Verse 13 f.: Is it becoming for a woman to pray to God unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame to him, etc. — On the tonsure, see above d. 24, p. I, q. I. — For which nature itself also teaches the codices and ed. 1 have which not even nature itself teaches [codd. GH befits], a reading to be accepted, had St. Bonaventure not altered the wording in the words of the Apostle; cod. Q therefore in no way [can] a woman [be ordained], which not even nature itself etc.
- 3Vers. 7: Vir quidem non debet velare caput suum, quoniam imago et gloria Dei est, mulier autem gloria viri est. Cfr. C. Mulier debet (19.), C. 33. q. 5. — Post imago Dei codd. M O R S T addunt non mulier.Verse 7: A man indeed ought not to veil his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. Cf. Canon Mulier debet (19), C. 33, q. 5. — After image of God codd. M O R S T add not the woman.
- 4Vers. 12: Docere autem mulieri non permitto etc. Cfr. I. Cor. 14, 34: Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant etc.Verse 12: But I do not permit a woman to teach, etc. Cf. 1 Cor. 14, 34: Let women keep silence in the churches, etc.
- 5Cfr. supra d. 20. p. II. q. 3. in corp., et C. Inter corporalia (2.), X. de Translatione episcopi (lib. 1. tit. 7.).Cf. above d. 20, p. II, q. 3, in the body [of the response], and the Canon Inter corporalia (2), Decretals, on the Translation of a bishop (bk. 1, tit. 7).
- 6Vers. 4.Verse 4.
- 7Cfr. August., XII. de Trin. c. 7. n. 10. seqq. Vide etiam II. Sent. d. 16. a. 2. q. 2.Cf. Augustine, On the Trinity bk. XII, c. 7, n. 10 ff. See also II Sent., d. 16, a. 2, q. 2.
- 1bCan. 25. Textus originalis subiicit post auctoritate haec verba, quae etiam cod. aa exhibet: haec omnia vobis resecare funditus, quanto [cod. aa quam] citius poteritis, censemus. Et.Canon 25. The original text subjoins after authority these words, which cod. aa also exhibits: we deem [it right] to cut off all these things from you utterly, and as speedily [cod. aa: as] you can. And.
- 2bQuorum auctores fuerunt Montanus, Prisca et Maximilla. Inter Cataphryges recensentur Pepuziani (Pepuza, oppidum in Phrygia, secundum Epiphan., II. Adversus Haeres. haeres. 48. c. 14, et Hieron., Epist. 41. alias 54. n. 3.) sive Quintilliani, de quibus refert Epiphan., loc. cit. haeres. 49. c. 2: Apud eosdem mulieres episcopi sunt et presbyteri et ad ceteros gradus alleguntur, nullum ut sexus discrimen servetur. Nam in Christo Iesu neque mas est neque femina [Gal. 3, 28.]. Cfr. August., de Haeres. n. 26. et 27.The authors of whom were Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla. Among the Cataphrygians are reckoned the Pepuzians (Pepuza, a town in Phrygia, according to Epiphanius, Against Heresies bk. II, heresy 48, c. 14, and Jerome, Letter 41, elsewhere 54, n. 3), or the Quintillians, concerning whom Epiphanius reports, in the cited place, heresy 49, c. 2: Among them women are bishops and presbyters and are chosen for the other grades, so that no distinction of sex is kept. For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female [Gal. 3, 28]. Cf. Augustine, On Heresies, nn. 26 and 27.
- 3bCan. 23. — Seq. canon est ibid. c. 30: Si quis rapuerit, vel sollicitaverit, vel corruperit assisteriam [ascetriam] vel diaconissam etc. — Tertius est C. Mulieres, quae apud Graecos presbyterae appellantur (19.).Canon 23. — The following canon is in the same place, c. 30: If anyone should carry off, or solicit, or corrupt a female assistant [ascetria] or a deaconess, etc. — The third is the Canon Women, who among the Greeks are called presbyters (19).
- 4bCap. 19: Mulieres, quae apud Graecos presbyterae appellantur, apud nos viduae, seniores, univirae et matricuriae appellantur, in ecclesia tanquam ordinatas constitui non debere. Gratian. huic cap. praemittit: «Presbyteram vero quam debeamus accipere, Laodicense Concilium, c. 11, ostendit dicens». — S. Bonav. haec verba respiciens allegat Presbyteram. — Pro matronae permulti codd. matrices, cod. U maturiores. — Quae paulo inferius de diaconissis dicuntur sunt secundum Glossam in C. Diaconissam superius allegatum.Chapter 19: Women, who among the Greeks are called presbyters, among us are called widows, elders, univirae, and matron-registrars, [it is said] that they ought not to be established in the church as ordained. Gratian prefixes to this chapter: «What we ought to understand by woman-presbyter, the Council of Laodicea, c. 11, shows, saying». — St. Bonaventure, regarding these words, cites Presbyteram. — For matrons very many codices [have] matrices, cod. U maturiores. — What is said a little below concerning deaconesses is according to the Gloss on the Canon Diaconissam cited above.
- 5bPro et prudentiorem, quod codd. IK omittunt, Vat. et prudentiorum. Inferius post quod hoc Vat. cum pluribus codd. omittit non.For and more prudent, which codd. IK omit, the Vatican [edition has] and of the more prudent. Below, after that this, the Vatican [edition], with several codices, omits not.
- 6bCfr. III. Sent. d. 12. a. 3. q. 1. — Inferius pro signum huius ferre, quod habet cod. F a secunda manu (primitus legebat cum codd. E L R S T bb signum huius conferre), alii codd. et edd. signum his conferre (fortasse huiusmodi ferre).Cf. III Sent., d. 12, a. 3, q. 1. — Below, for bear the sign of this, which cod. F has from a second hand (originally it read, with codd. E L R S T bb, confer the sign of this), other codices and editions [have] confer the sign to these (perhaps bear [a sign] of this kind).
- 7bVide Epiphan., II. Adversus Haeres. haeres. 49. c. 3. et III. haeres. 79. c. 3. seqq., ubi etiam officium diaconissarum exponitur, de quo cfr. etiam ipsius III. Expositio fidei, c. 21; Gratian. C. 15. q. 3. introduct.See Epiphanius, Against Heresies bk. II, heresy 49, c. 3, and bk. III, heresy 79, c. 3 ff., where also the office of deaconesses is expounded, concerning which cf. also his own Exposition of the Faith (bk. III), c. 21; Gratian, C. 15, q. 3, introduction.
- 8bEpist. 1. Cor. 11, 3: Volo autem vos scire, quod omnis viri caput Christus est; caput autem mulieris, vir etc. Cfr. Eph. 5, 23. Vide Gratian. C. 15. q. 3. introduct. § 1. seq. — Pro quod est signum edd. cuius ratio est.Epistle 1 Cor. 11, 3: But I wish you to know that the head of every man is Christ; but the head of the woman is the man, etc. Cf. Eph. 5, 23. See Gratian, C. 15, q. 3, introduction, § 1 f. — For which is a sign the editions [have] the reason of which is.
- 9bCfr. C. Nova quaedam (10.), X. de Poenitentiis et remiss. (lib. V. tit. 38.). — Infra post ordinarie cod. W supplet datur, edd. eidem datur etiam.Cf. the Canon Nova quaedam (10), Decretals, on Penances and remissions (bk. V, tit. 38). — Below, after ordinarily cod. W supplies is given, the editions is given to the same one also.
- 1cCodd. R S T X et ed. 1 quam constat mulieribus.Codd. R S T X and ed. 1 [read] which it is agreed [befits] for women. ---